Those of us old enough to remember the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NAFTA) recall its promise of free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and greater economic prosperity in each of these countries.

* This article was first published by INSOL International on March 16, 2015.

Upholds Extraterritorial Application of 11 U.S.C. § 362 Automatic Stay

The Masri litigation has yet again troubled the English Court on the principle of comity and provided the Court of Appeal with the opportunity to say just how important it is in international debt enforcement.

The background on Masri

On 26 July 2010, the Insolvency Service issued proposals for a new type of short-term restructuring moratorium. The moratorium would be available through a court-based process to companies with a viable business and the general support of creditors. The proposed moratorium could have the potential to encourage more companies to view the UK as an attractive jurisdiction for restructuring.

What are the proposals?

The main features are:

Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit a foreign representative from bringing an avoidance action so long as the claim for relief is based on the substantive laws of the jurisdiction where the foreign proceeding is located. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is consistent with the dual policy considerations of comity and predictability. Fogerty v. Petroquest Res., Inc. (In re Condor Ins. Ltd.), 601 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2010).

Background

On September 14, 2010, a New York state court entered an Order of Rehabilitation for Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and Centennial Insurance Company (collectively, "Atlantic") to try to resolve Atlantic's insolvency and return it to the marketplace. The court appointed the New York Superintendent of Insurance as the "Rehabilitator" and directed the Rehabilitator to, among other things, take possession and control of Atlantic's property, conduct Atlantic 's business, and remove the causes and conditions that made this rehabilitation proceeding necessary.

Introduction

On September 26, 2014, in the Farnum case (Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 768 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014)) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Bankruptcy Code section 363 review applied to a transfer of a Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) claim held by an off-shore entity in foreign liquidation proceedings recognized in the United States. The decision is significant for two reasons.